Fitchburg Police Chief: We Need a National Gun Registry

“Police say holes in firearms records make it difficult to track the source of weapons they recover from crime scenes,” sentinelandenterprise.com reports. “The ongoing investigation of a shooting on Fulton Street last month has shed light on an issue Fitchburg Police Chief Robert DeMoura said is putting his officers’ lives in danger.” You ready for this? Sure you are . . .

According to Massachusetts law, all residents must notify the Firearms Records Bureau of all sales or transfers of all firearms, which then go through the Massachusetts Instant Record Check to ensure that neither party is prohibited from owning a firearm. In other words, the Bay State has universal background checks (i.e. the gun control advocates’ wet dream). So how’s that working out?

On Jan. 24, Keno Berrick, 20, and Marquis Ford, 28, both of 21 Fulton St., were arrested following an alleged incident that day that involved the firing of a weapon in the street. Police said they found four firearms in their possession, three handguns and a long gun. Two of the guns had previously been reported stolen, one from inside the state and one from outside.

Police were unable to pinpoint the origin of the two other guns because of gaps in the firearms’ records.

“Where did (they) come from?” asked DeMoura.

Commonly, the answer is that police don’t know and may not be able to find out.

Question: who cares how the bad guys got the guns?

The police want to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals. The police reckon they can use tracing information from guns used in crime to identify “straw purchasers” – people with clean records who bought guns to sell to criminals. Imprison the straw purchasers (min. 2.5 year jail sentence) and they’ll reduce the supply of guns to criminals. In theory.

In practice, only the stupidest of straw purchasers gets caught. Even if the police identify the original buyer as a straw purchaser for a “crime gun,” they have to prove the gun or guns were bought for a bad guy or guys. The straw purchaser can say, oops, I lost it or oops it was stolen. As we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty (at least in theory), proving that a person without a criminal record bought a gun for a criminal is tough sledding.

Besides, most guns used in crimes were stolen from lawful owners. Let’s look at the stats, shall we?

In 2011, 1,737 firearms were traced by law enforcement in Massachusetts, according to the ATF. These include firearms recovered by police or found lost or abandoned. It does not include firearms from gun buybacks or guns turned in to police by their owners. Of those traced firearms, 351 came from Massachusetts, 133 came from New Hampshire, 79 came from Maine, 60 came from Georgia, 56 came from Florida and 38 came from California.

Did you catch that? The records include lost or abandoned firearms. Wouldn’t it be helpful to know HOW MANY? And how many of these were stolen and how many were delivered unto evil hands via straw purchasers? * crickets chirping *

Again, who cares where these guns came from? Not to belabor the point, but tracing firearms has done sweet FA to reduce the crime rate in general and firearms-related crime in particular.

Which leaves us where? If you’re the Sentinel, it leaves you searching for a pro-registry argument. How about this one?

The lack of records also makes it harder for police to assess potential dangers. For example, when police serve a search warrant, [Fitchburg police Officer Ron] L’Ecuyer said they would like to know if the person living at the address has a high number of weapons at his or her disposal.

Since when does [theoretical] officer safety come before Massachusetts’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms without ANY government infringement? And what’s this about a “high number of weapons”? Shouldn’t that be “a deadly assault weapon”? Or is that an argument for another day?

Of course, the protect cops thing’s a side-issue. It’s all about “stopping criminal access to firearms.” Yes, well, is there any sane person who thinks that creating a national firearms registry would stop the flow of illegal guns from one state to another? No, but there are some insane people who do.

[Chief] DeMoura would like to see a national database where gun owners have to register all their firearms. Lowell police Chief Bill Taylor also said a firearms registry would help his department.

“I share the frustration that Chief DeMoura has expressed,” said Taylor. He said gun record searches tend to give “very mixed results,” and the older the weapon is, the harder it is to find information.

He’d like to see a federal registry — “the more comprehensive the better.”

He said the registration would help them determine if guns they recover had been previously stolen.

And then what? And then nothing. Other than, say, confiscation of legally held firearms rendered illegal by legislation or executive fiat (e.g., Connecticut and Hurricane Katrina). DeMoura doesn’t see it that way.

There is no pending legislation to create a formal state gun registry, or a federal registry. In fact, the failed gun-control legislation supported by President Barack Obama last year included passages that made creation of a gun registry illegal to improve the bill’s chances of passing.

DeMoura said he doesn’t look at this issue from a political perspective.

“I don’t have a political philosophy, I have a law-enforcement philosophy,” said DeMoura. “Some cop is going to get killed because of this.”

A “law enforcement philosophy.” I’m not sure I like the sound of that. Wait. No. No I don’t. Maybe that’s because not-so-deep thinker DeMoura reckons a national or “formal” gun registry will prevent crime by reducing criminal access to guns. Not surprisingly, his underling agrees, and adds “Let’s do it for the children!”

Fitchburg Deputy Police Chief Phil Kearns said there was a case in Fitchburg in which a caseworker from the Department of Children and Families was in an apartment when a child located an unsecured .357 handgun and fired it in a back room.

Which may or may not have been a stolen, straw-purchased, lost or legally owned firearm. Whose owner violated Massachusetts law about securing a firearm. In other words, WTF does that have to do with anything? In fact, whose idea was this article anyway? The chances of a national “formal” national firearms registry are thankfully slim. Ah, but a[nother] backdoor state registration scheme . . .

On Feb. 3, the state Legislature’s Committee to Reduce Firearm Violence listed 44 recommendations for state lawmakers on how to reduce gun violence. Their report did not recommend creating a formal registry, but it did recommend having gun owners sign an affidavit each time they renew their firearms license saying they still own all the guns they had previously reported possession of. The panel also recommended increasing civil penalties for failing to report a gun as stolen.

To think the American Revolution started in Massachusetts.

101 Responses to Fitchburg Police Chief: We Need a National Gun Registry

“The lack of records also makes it harder for police to assess potential dangers. For example, when police serve a search warrant, [Fitchburg police Officer Ron] L’Ecuyer said they would like to know if the person living at the address has a high number of weapons at his or her disposal.” Which, of course, will lead to warrants being served by SWAT teams in dynamic, no-knock entries.

Are you okay with the police approaching traffic stops “expecting to get gunned down”? Miss a stop sign and find yourself face-down on the gravel with a pistol pointed at you while the police search your vehicle “just in case”? If you have to call 911 for a noise complaint, are you okay with the police forcing their way into your apartment and holding you at gun point so they can ask you which neighbor is the loud one? I mean, they expect to get gunned down – wouldn’t you?

Gun registration would do nothing to protect the police, and would do everything to penalize and intimidate legal gun owners.

I think you guys missed his point, or rather overthought it. I’m only getting that Peter is encouraging offiers to be cautious and maintain situational awareness. I don’t get him endorsing the police to behave at all times as though everyone is a known wanted violent felon, just that it’s dangerous work and one should be aware of that potential.

Not good for the gun owners in High River Alberta where the RCMP kept the people out of town and went in to “secure” legally held firearms using the now “abolished” gun registry. Nobody would have known what happened if the Canadian Forces involved in flood relief didn’t protest to the RCMP and then talk to the press about it.

We heard the same BS police arguments about “officer safety”. “It’s important to know, don’t ya know, what legal guns are registered to the residence.” Because its the legal guns that are going to hurt the cops, yeah right.

The Registry was only ever going to serve as a confiscation list. The Long Gun part of our registry was done away with 2 years ago. Just last week, the RCMP decided to reclassify as prohibited two widely owned and approved semi auto rifles. How will they know who owns them? Well, as was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the RCMP last summer used an illegally kept copy of the old long gun registry to search certain homes in flood ravaged High River, Alberta. Who is running things? The police or Parliament?

So, the lesson is that it’s not just some US cops who think they are above the law of the land, ours think so too!

We sure are trying. The grabbers act like they didn’t pull this sh!t in Great Britain too. The, you must have a gun safe, we want to inspect the safe(to be sure its safe), we want to look at your guns(just to check serial numbers) to be sure their not stolen, Next up, the knock at the door, you have this this & that. We want this this & that, if not you come with us. At least the grabbers have kept their sense of humor.

What a waste. It reminds me of that old 1990’s website, no idea if it’s still out there, called wheresgeorge.com. You take a one dollar bill and register it on the site. Then you write on the bill itself something like “look up this bill’s serial number on wheresgeorge.com!”

So people do that, and there was a little text field where you could enter the zip code where you acquired this bill and another where you could write the circumstances or shop or whatever about how you got it. In a birthday card, as change at the store, a tip in your g-string. Whatever. Over time, you could read about your dollar’s travels. Sometimes the trail stopped. Either somebody blew off their turn to update, or maybe the bill ended up in a vault or destroyed.

Quite lame, I know, but no more so than this idiotic wheresglock.gov type registry this fool chief is contemplating. At least wheresgeorge.com was on one’s own time and dime and not fleecing the taxpayer of money and freedom.

Commander Adama (Battle Star Galactica): “There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”

If the cops are so worried about officer safety, then don’t be a cop. Being a lumberjack is very dangerous also, but I’m still going to build a home! Since when do people give up rights because the cops are worried about their dangerous job? Don’t be a cop if you can’t handle the danger and don’t ask us to give up more of our rights or register our guns. Nobody made a cop choose that profession.
They themselves wanted to go into an exciting, well paying dangerous profession where they can drive real fast, beat people up, have authority up the ying yang and virtually be immune from laws and then they want to take away more of our rights so they can have enhanced officer safety?
Is there any part of EAT ME they don’t get? I’m not making it easier for the government just to appease the cops.

The most important thing to a cop is getting home at the end of shift. Which is fine. But when it’s the only thing, and will be achieved at any cost — even the lives of innocent civilians — then the police have lost all moral authority.

So your saying we all shouldn’t have to wear ankle bracelets? ///This is Randy Drescher district 4, request permission to drive my car to the store for groceries.// I better stop before the libs orgasm.

In Canada we have similar issues, like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police arguing in favour of the gun registry (while financially supported by an IT company that ran the registry). The RCMP commissioner and the police chief in my city are advocating DNA samples from all arestees, etc. While there are freedom of expression issues, it would still be legally feasible in both the U.S. and Canada to, as part of employment contracts, gag police chiefs and commissioners from advocating or lobbying for legislation. Publicly advocating legislation, or joining a lobby group would mean immediate termination. Police should NOT be allowed to influence legislation in a free society–if a cop wants to make laws, he should turn in his badge and run for office.

As a former resident of a big city, I can identify with the plight of the urban cop arresting a bunch of thugs in a leftist zone. Thanks to said leftist policies, the police need damn near Biblical evidence before a leftist court will sentence a thug for good. If the thugs say the right thing at the right time after committing a crime in broad daylight, they’ll walk .

And the law is powerless to stop them. I can understand a frustrated urban cop wanting more tools to keep G Money and his homeboy Three Strikes off the block.

The solution here, however, isn’t gun registration. It’ll just be another line item the slick defense attorney will DQ at Mr Three Strikes trial. The solution is a court system which puts bad people away, for good. Not a sorry excuse of a judicial system where, in Chicago for recent example, a thug who shot at a PEACE OFFICER got probation after three years served. Texas doesn’t have a gun crime problem, because cop killers don’t walk after doing less time then I’m spending in college.

That would be unconstitutional, same as the original GCA was. You can’t force criminals to register their guns since it would be self incrimination. Violation of registration laws can only be charged against the law abiding.

Police were unable to pinpoint the origin of the two other guns because of gaps in the firearms’ records. “Where did (they) come from?” asked DeMoura. Commonly, the answer is that police don’t know and may not be able to find out.

Uh, whose name is engraved on them? That is where they came from. Now what? Does the criminal go free or can he still be charged?

DeMoura said he doesn’t look at this issue from a political perspective.

“I don’t have a political philosophy, I have a law-enforcement philosophy,” said DeMoura. “Some cop is going to get killed because of this.”

….what a frigging idiot….does he not know that his job description is primarily “political”…does he not recognize his role in setting an environment that supports a “Constitutional Philosophy…? Does he not understand that his employees knew of the danger when they signed up…and he believes we should sacrifice our rights for their “safety”….eff’ him….

….it sounds to me like he needs to be fired, charged with violations of his Oath-of-Office and send him to prison for about 20 years….and look…I didn’t suggest we hang him….ha!

MA license holders can sell up to four handguns a year in face to face transactions with other MA license holders (you can buy all you want in face to face transactions). If a license holder sells more than four, he’s considered a dealer. If he buys more than four, he’s considered a good guy to hang out with.

All firearms transfers must be reported on Form FA-10. Guns brought in from out of state — by a person moving to MA, for example — need not be reported, since that’s not a transfer.

The FA-10 is filed as much as a week after the fact. While FFL sales are required to be run through the MA instant check system prior to sale to confirm that the license is still valid, private transactions are not run through the MA instant check system.

Unlike NICS, the MA system is accessible to private persons who can obtain a certificate from MA proving that the buyer’s license is current.

I lived in MA for many years. The FA-10 is a joke. The usual procedure is to fill one out when you engage in a private sale, then file it in the nearest dumpster. Several years ago, I filed a FOIA request with the Mass. Dept. of Public Safety for my firearms records. Several weeks later, I received an inch-thick stack of papers. Most of the guns listed were guns I hadn’t owned for years. Even more guns I still owned or no longer owned were not listed. Prior to computerization, MA DPS kept FA-10s in shoe boxes filed by date. After 10 or so years, the older ones were incinerated. Some system!

MA “license holders” can sell etc. Holding a license for what, pray tell. In TX, we understand “license holder” as an FFL, Class 3 dealer, manufacturer, etc. WTF is a “license holder” regarding a firearms transfer of up to four firearms?

I once went looking for figures on the number of crimes involving firearms where the ATF tracing system was instrumental in solving the case. I had figured there must be SOME cases where an original legal owner used his own firearm to commit a crime, and that firearm was recovered at the scene, and no other leads existed.

Such cases might in fact exist, but damned if I can find any. With all the statistics the ATF keeps on traced guns, they don’t seem to keep track of how many traces were actually involved in solving crimes. The “success story” anecdotes they tell invariably show the trace was superfluous to the investigation, either because the gun was stolen, had already been resold (legally or illegally), or the perpetrator’s identity had already been known when the gun was found. A fair number of such stories involved tracing the guns used in suicides, an… interesting use of tax money, if you ask me.

I agree. Sheriffs and Constables are much closer and responsive to the people, in general, than city police; especially big city police. State police could go either way. That really depends on the state.

There are reasonable measures to take to ensure the safety of police officers. They should be armed, armored, and well-trained. That word ‘reasonable’ does not include forgetting about the constitution.

Statistics dictate that one of Fitchburg’s Finest will be injured in a vehicle accident due to non-use of seat belts. Maybe Chief “No Chin” DeMoura should look into that first. Because officer safety , of course.

I appreciate and respect the police officers on the front lines. Thank you to all who follow the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. A large plurality of chiefs, however, seem to have little or no understanding of the 2nd Amendment or the lies that pervade the gun control cabal. Chiefs seem to be promoted due to their politically correct personalities rather than for any talent for leading an organizational charge against genuine criminals. Selecting the wrong people for chief has undermined law enforcement efforts in the same way that choosing the wrong men to be generals and admirals has undermined our military readiness.

This is EXACTLY the question I have been asking for a long time–and I have NEVER seen any answer at all, much less an answer that makes any sense. The law does not care who owned a gun at the time of the alleged criminal act–all the law/judge/jury cares about is who had possession of the gun. TRACE INFORMATION BEYOND THE LAST REGISTERED OWNER IS LEGALLY IRRELEVANT IN ALMOST EVERY CASE. Finding out who owned the gun aT the time it was stolen doesn’t solve any crime–it merely allows for stolen property to be returned to its owner; who stole it in the first place will likely never be known or provable, and even so, the statute of limitations for theft will probably have long run by then.

as a LEO in MI, where there has been a handgun registration for as long as I can remember, the only use that I see it has is being able to gat serial #’s for stolen guns because the owner never writes them down. ever. going to a call like a Domestic or a Barricaded person they will cross check to see if there are any had guns Registered to the adress…… but that mean little because long guns aren’t registered.

I am happy that we are working our way through legislation towards getting rid of the registration.

If I was told to go take folks guns away, (unless for a good legal reason, like they flipped a nut and had to be involentarily hospitalized) I wouldn’t. I don’t have to obey an unlawful order.

Right. By design or defect, such registries aren’t reliable on an individual owner basis. They’re valuable only in dragnet confiscations where you’re playing percentages as opposed to specifics.

Really, all they need is to tag you as a gunowner, in general. That’s enough for confiscation purposes because when they do show up, they’ll find *some* gun(s). Maybe not what’s on their list, but just whatever you own now.

Gun registries are actually gunOWNER registries. That may seem like a distinction without a difference at first, but not after one ponders the motivation for and utility of the registry in the first place.

Oh? A law enforcement philosophy, huh? While I search for a definition of that menacing term, perhaps the good Chief here could do a little research of his own on First Principles, then come back and reconcile his busybody aspirations with “shall not be infringed.”

Aside from harrassing, intimidating and occasionally needlessly incriminating perfectly peacecul gunowners on the way toward confiscation, this registry monstronsity is a waste. Really, Chief? We all learn for safety purposes to regard every gun as being loaded. Why can’t officers just be trained to assume that everyone they serve with a warrant is potentially armed, instead of concocting this asinine pretext of officer safety? Oh, because that was never the point.

Guys, you are missing the point of all of this. A gun registry gives the cops something to do post-crime. Cops don’t prevent crimes – they can’t and aren’t legally required to do so. What this registry does is create more “police work” for the cops.

Cops have a very strong union and are simply looking for more work for the rank and file. A registry fits nicely into safe police work that doesn’t risk being shot at.

There should be no unions in government work. Start first with the cops.

Interesting point, especially about unionization. Even FDR was against unionization of government employees. It creates an unsavory conspiracy between politicians and unions to bilk the taxpayers, bribe the politicians and launder the ill gotten gains through campaign contributions and employee pay & benefits.

The unionization issue is a great point…while I think they should be able to organize (to some degree) … they should remember their primary loyalty should be towards their employer…”We The People”… in my opinion…the real issues are simply ethics, morality, greed and ego…if people negotiated in good faith, produced in good faith…organized and behaved in civilized, productive manners…we would not have the adversarial relationships that pollute our existence…

Another illustrious Masshole. They destroy the guns they “find” lost or abandoned, or in criminals possession. Or even legally owned ones for that matter. How many were returned from the Mass. Po-Po to their rightful owners???
(Crickets)
As far as a National Registry? Go (insert expletive here) yourself.

I’m a commercial/industrial electrician. My job is physically and mentally demanding. Today, I busted my balls for eight hours. Outside. In the pouring rain. When I got home, I grabbed a beer, kissed my wife (and my dogs), and thanked God for my job. I know what it’s like to be out of work for long periods of time. As such, I can’t abide LAZY BASTARDS COMPLAINING ABOUT HAVING TO ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOBS. Pathetic.

Fitchburg is a run down mill town that is filled with scumbags and has a serious crime problem (I had the unfortunate pleasure of working in Fitchburg for a while). The rate of gun ownership is extremely low in Fitchburg (even when compared to the rest of Massachusetts) as the chief is not fond of giving out unrestricted A’s to those who live there. It never ceases to amaze me that some chiefs in mass feel that clamping down on legal gun ownership is going to stop criminals, yet the towns with the most amount of crime are the ones where it’s always toughest to get a license.

The long-term result of the NSW Firearms Registry has been to provide a shopping list for criminals after copies of the registry data were left on the unsecured intranet for operational convenience. The Deputy Commissioner who authorized this should have been fired, tarred, and feathered for gross incompetence.

Registry data is used by/for police. Listening on a scanner and you wil here that owner of car registration ABC123 is a licensed firearm owner. In responding to domestic incidents the officers will be told that there is a licensed firearm owner in the street along with the owner’s address.

“Police say holes in firearms records make it difficult to track the source of weapons they recover from crime scenes…”

If they are stolen… how does it matter? This pursuit for straw purchaser’s is ridiculous. It is so easy for a straw purchaser to eliminate traceability on the firearm. Just remove the serial number on the frame, and sand off the microstamp on the firing pin (if it has one). Done. This pursuit is a bunch of ineffective garbage that seeks to list my firearms on a government list. No thanks.

G.Gordon Liddy headed up an investigation at Treasury when he worked for Nixon. They studied the efficacy of the then 60-year old New York City Sullivan Law. A gun registration law, the Sullivan Act was supposed aid crime solving. Liddy’s group found that in 60 years, exactly ONE crime had been solved by tracing the serial numbers on a gun. He relates this story in “Will”.
Go as far back in history as you like. Say, the Pisistratid tyranny of Athens in the late 6th century B.C., and you will that weapons registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

Once again, let’s turn the law-abiding into criminals. Facing this kind of nonsense in NJ again (A2006), a bill that will make 11-15 round magazines and arms which hold over 10 rounds illegal with no grandfather clause I say ENOUGH. If it’s not “For the Children” it’s “For the safety of law enforcement”. It’s never for the self-defense rights of the individual.

I’m the author of the story that inspired this post. I am also the author of a 6-month series in 2013 where I documented the entire process to get a firearm permit in Massachusetts, and am now the proud owner of a S&W J-frame .38. I also plan to buy an AR-15 when I can afford it.

You imply the story is an advocacy piece for a state or national registry. I don’t understand this. About reviewing it, I saw that some details were cut out by an editor, which I just had put into the online version. Specifically, the idea that MIRC functions as a registry.

Still, that didn’t make the piece one-sided. I had Chief DeMoura at its center, and he advocates that position, but I also had critics of gun registries.

“Besides, most guns used in crimes were stolen from lawful owners.” The ATF doesn’t agree with that statement. I tried to show how difficult it is for the government to understand where crime guns come from, and that makes it harder for them to try to stop criminals from getting guns. You could take that information and use it to argue why certain gun control measures are flawed, for example. If crime guns in Massachusetts tend to come out of state, then what is the point of introducing more gun control in Massachusetts?

You may not think that a registry is the answer, but that doesn’t mean the data gap isn’t a problem.

Y’know, I got all the way through this waiting to see my initial reaction, and I guess I missed it. This poop-for-brains authoritarian asswipe says we need a national registry to more easily track stolen firearms, and I completely agree. Why, in fact, do we NOT have a national registry for STOLEN firearms? I’ve had 2 stolen, one was a Colt Python in 1969, which we reportedly promptly and have heard ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about since. What, 45 years ago? Nothing? Really?

The second was several years back, didn’t bother to report it, nobody was going to do anything about it anyway. Nobody would oppose a registry of stolen firearms, why don’t we have one? It doesn’t serve a particular agenda, this jerkwad wants to create a registry of more than a thousand times as many firearms, at well past 1000 times the cost, possibly including an overthrown government and 100 million dead, to accomplish the same thing? WHY? The logistics of a “stolen firearms registry” would be so EASY.

I am retired cop from Mass and still work related field. This whole gun control issue has been so blown out of proportion. We need not one more gun law or restriction. Just enforce and make the sentences painful, meaning as long as stated. I took down a guy with a sawed off Remington 1100 which was pointed at my mid section from about 6 inches and long story short judge and defense attorney were formerly law partners and the perp never went to jail.
My second point is and I am embarrassed to say not that my opinion on this will be accepted by other cops but I can’t figure out when or why everyone became so afraid. I have had my share of dealinng with bad situations and I never went around so worried about guns or dealing with anyone with them. There are plenty of ways of getting killed and most don’t involve guns. If the new breed is so afraid maybe they should find a different line of work. I never heard a firefighter calling for a national or state registry of fires.
It is sad what’s happening to our formerly free country which many of us fought wars for!